Author Topic: Immigration; weaponized immigration  (Read 690779 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72261
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #950 on: September 14, 2015, 10:58:13 AM »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #951 on: September 14, 2015, 01:25:51 PM »
Glenn Beck on Syrians

For those Beck lovers, he should be jailed if he tries this. The guy has gone totally  wacko. That is the only word for it.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/14/glenn-beck-in-his-own-words-ill-save-more-people-than-schindler/
PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #952 on: September 14, 2015, 03:36:12 PM »
Beck has lost all credibility.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #953 on: September 14, 2015, 03:40:07 PM »
In response to PP's post above #947:

The left has to find somebody to keep the liberal ponzy scheme going.   So bring in from overseas.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72261
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #954 on: September 14, 2015, 06:48:26 PM »
I've retained a soft spot for Beck, but that is pretty hard to take.


objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Federal Data: US Admits 250,000 Muslims Annually...
« Reply #956 on: September 15, 2015, 12:09:33 PM »
Federal Data: U.S. Annually Admits Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants

By PAMELA GELLER on September 14, 2015


Obama’s Trojan horse. In 2013, Obama imported 350,000 Muslim ‘migrants.’ Is it any wonder there has been a spike in jihadi attacks in the U.S. in recent years? And now he has called for increases in that enormous number even as ISIS has vowed to send jihadis in with the “migration’.

The Twin Cities already has a huge ISIS problem. Garland, Chattanooga, Key West, Phoenix ….. and it’s only going to get worse. Much worse.

Obama says he wants to assist Europe. Why? Do they take Mexicans and Central Americans they emigrate to the USA?



Federal Data: U.S. Annually Admits Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants,” Breitbart, September 14, 2015

A Breitbart News review of State Department and Homeland Security data reveals that the United States already admits more than a quarter of a million Muslim migrants each year. President Obama intends to add another 10,000 Syrian migrants on top of that.

In 2013 alone, 117,423 migrants from Muslim-majority countries were permanently resettled within the United States— having been given lawful permanent resident status. Additionally in 2013, the United States voluntarily admitted an extra 122,921 temporary migrants from Muslim countries as foreign students and foreign workers as well as 39,932 refugees and asylees from Muslim countries.

Thus, twelve years after the September 11th hijackers were invited into the country on temporary visas, the U.S. decided to admit 280,276 migrants from Muslim countries within a single fiscal year.

To put these numbers into perspective, this means that every year the U.S. admits a number of Muslim migrants larger in size than the entire population of Des Moines, Iowa; Lincoln, Nebraska; or Dayton, Ohio.

The rate of Muslim immigration has been increasing since September 11. Between 2001 and 2013, the United States permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim immigrants throughout the United States. Unlike illegal immigrants, legal immigrants granted lifetime resettlement privileges will be given automatic work permits, welfare access, and the ability to become voting citizens.

Experts believe these numbers will only continue to increase.

The Middle East represents the fastest-growing bloc of immigrants admitted into the country on visas, according to a census data-based report authored by the Center for Immigration Studies. Student visas for Middle Eastern countries have similarly grown enormously, including 16-fold increase in Saudi students since 9/11. Arabic is now the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of recent refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.

The large-scale importation of Muslim migrants from nations that do not share Western values has posed a series of assimilation difficulties for the United States. For instance, the importation of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries has now put half a million girls in the United States at risk of enduring a traditional anti-Western, anti-woman practice known as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This means that there are more girls in the United States at risk of lifelong sexual disfigurement than there are in Uganda and Cameroon.

Moreover, the importation of Muslim immigrants through the nation’s refugee program has led to the development of pockets of radicalized communities throughout the United States— as evidenced in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Dearborn, Michigan.

A review of recent terror activity– provided by the Senate Immigration Subcommittee– confirms the terror threat posed by our federal immigration policy of issuing large numbers of visas to majority-Muslim countries:

A refugee voluntarily admitted from Uzbekistan and “living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs.”

A college student voluntarily admitted from Somalia, “who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Kazakhstan “with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Sudan, “who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, tried to join ISIS and wage jihad on its behalf after having been recruited online.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Bangladesh, “who applied for and received U.S. citizenship,‎ tried to incite people to travel to Somalia and conduct violent jihad against the United States.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Yemen, “who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was arrested for trying to join ISIS. He was also charged with attempting to illegally buy firearms to try to shoot American military personnel.”

Yet even as the United States struggles to properly screen and assimilate the large numbers brought in each year, many Republican presidential candidates say that number should be even greater. GOP presidential hopefuls John Kasich, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Jeb Bush, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) have all expressed support for admitting more Syrian migrants.

“I would be open to that if it can be done in a way that allows us to ensure that among them are not people who are part of a terrorist organization who are using this crisis,” Rubio told Boston Herald Radio on September 8th. This proposal could result in the admittance of many refugees. “The vast and overwhelming majority of people who are seeking refuge are not terrorists, of course, but you always are concerned about that,” Rubio said.

By contrast, GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has suggested that Muslim countries should be willing to take in some of the Muslim migrants.

“Look, from a humanitarian standpoint, I’d love to help, but we have our own problems.” Trump declared on the September 9 broadcast of Hannity. “We have so many problems that we have to solve… The Gulf states [are] tremendously wealthy. You have five groups of people, six groups, they’re not taking anybody. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, these are tremendously wealthy and powerful from the standpoint of money. They — they’re not taking anybody. Russia’s not taking. Nobody’s taking. [But we’re] supposed to take — we have to straighten out our own problems,” Trump said.

Some presidential hopefuls have objected to the premise of Trump’s America-first immigration proposal— arguing that greater levels of immigration would only serve to benefit America.

For instance, the I-Squared bill currently before Congress introduced by Marco Rubio— whose campaign has declared he will be in first place by February— would import even more immigrants — some Muslim — by lifting green card caps for foreign students and tripling the number of foreign workers admitted on visas. This bill is central to Rubio’s campaign platform of creating “A New American Economy.”

Several of Rubio’s business backers have already begun to implement this policy throughout the nation. In Rubio’s home state of Florida, for instance, the New American Economy is at work at corporations including Disney, which is replacing many of its current American workers with foreign low-salaried workers from developing nations. This “New American Economy” would have multiple benefits for America such as fewer English speakers, more diversity and lower wages that will allow corporations to increase their bottom lines.

Rubio’s effort to create a New American Century is supported by many prominent Republicans and Democrats who say we need to expand our refugee resettlement of Muslim migrants.

For instance, Glenn Beckand Lindsey Graham have both explicitly said that the United States needs to take in more more refugees because a poem written by Emma Lazarus now displayed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. The poem, entitled “The New Colossus,” reads in part:

Give me your tired, your poor/ your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,/the wretched refuse of your teeming shore./Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,/I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

According to the Pew Research Center, there are nearly 5 billion people world-wide living on $10 or less a day. The globally poor and low-income population is fifteen times larger than the entire population of the United States.

The Statue of Liberty was not given to the United States with any association to immigration. Rather the statue was intended to be a symbol of “Liberty Enlightening the World,” which is why the only text originally included on the statue was the year 1776 written in Roman Numerals.

Yet even when Lazarus’ poem was later added to the statue in the early 1900s, it was understood that the poem was not meant to represent the nation’s federal immigration policy– a detail underscored by the fact that shortly after that poem was added, then-President Calvin Coolidge enacted a nearly five-decades-long immigration pause to allow the influx of European immigrants to better assimilate and allow middle class wages to rise.


Ironically, the Statue of Liberty– so often invoked by advocates for large-scale immigration– was a gift from the nation of France. Yet of the one million green cards handed out last year, very few were given to the Thomas Jefferson’s second favorite nation. About 9 out of 10 of green cards issued last year went to non-European foreign nationals from Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

In 2013, we added more than ten times more immigrants on green cards from the Muslim countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Egypt (48,507) than we did from the nation France (4,425).

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/federal-data-u-s-annually-admits-quarter-of-a-million-muslim-migrants.html/#sthash.4GCbLRiT.dpuf
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72261
    • View Profile
The ongoing invasion of Europe
« Reply #957 on: September 16, 2015, 09:53:22 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn-UCR5p0y0#t=63

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV315xqbRK8

Infowars is often a scurrilous site, so I ask sincerely, any inaccuracies in this footage?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #958 on: September 16, 2015, 10:03:30 AM »
On the guns, I read elsewhere that they were meant for another country, but I cannot remember the details. However, the general reporting has been in favor of what Infowars has said.

On the immigrants, the media is certainly downplaying the problems, especially that 75% are men, mostly young, and they are ignoring claims that a large part are potentially ISIS infiltrators.

Also, what is being ignored is that large numbers have significant id, including passports, etc. These are being throw away along the route so as to avoid being otherwise identified and denied entry or refugee status.

But both Alex Jones (Infowars) and the media have their own agendas, so who really knows?
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Coulter: The War On America Turns 50...
« Reply #960 on: October 01, 2015, 08:07:20 PM »
THE WAR ON AMERICA TURNS 50

Ann Coulter - September 30, 2015

Half a century ago, Democrats looked at the country and realized they were never going to convince Americans to agree with them. But they noticed that people in most other countries of the world already agreed with them. The solution was obvious.


So in 1965 -- 50 years ago this week -- Sen. Ted Kennedy passed an immigration law that has brought 59 million foreigners to our shores, who happen to vote 8-2 for the Democrats.


Democrats haven't won any arguments; they changed the voters. If anything, the Democrats have stopped bothering to appeal to Americans. The new feminized Democratic Party says, That's too bad about those steelworkers in Ohio losing their jobs, but THERE'S A WOMAN AT A LAW FIRM IN NEW YORK CITY WHO DESERVES TO MAKE PARTNER!


Republicans should be sweeping the country, but they aren't, because of Kennedy's immigration law. Without post-1965 immigrants bloc-voting for the Democrats, Obama never would have been elected president, and Romney would have won a bigger landslide against him in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter in 1980.


This isn't a guess; it's a provable fact. Obama beat Romney by less than 5 million votes in a presidential election in which about 125 million votes were cast. More than 30 million of Obama's votes came from people who arrived under Teddy Kennedy's immigration law; fewer than 10 million of Romney's did.


The 1965 act brought in the poorest of the poor from around the globe. Non-English-speaking peasants from wildly backward cultures could be counted on to be dependent on government assistance for generations to come.


Kennedy and other Democrats swore up and down that the new immigration law would not change the country's demographics, but post-1965-act immigrants are nothing like the people who already lived here.


As Pew Research cheerfully reports, previous immigrants were "almost entirely" European. But since Kennedy's immigration act, a majority of immigrants have been from Latin America. One-quarter are from Asia. Only 12 percent of post-1965-act immigrants have been from Europe -- and they're probably Muslims.



Apparently, the "American experiment" is actually some kind of sociological trial in which we see if people who have no history of Western government can run a constitutional republic.


As of 1970, there were only 9 million Hispanics in the entire country, according to the Pew Research Center. Today, there are well more than 60 million.


We've already taken in one-quarter of the entire population of Mexico, most of whom seem to live in Los Angeles. For the last decade, nearly half of all felons sent to California's prisons have been Hispanic, according to the Department of Corrections.


In 1970, there were only a few thousand Haitians in America. Today, there are nearly a million. Miami beaches and New York parks are suddenly littered with goat heads from Haitian voodoo rituals.


In 1970, there were virtually no Somalis in the United States. In the past 25 years alone, we've brought in more than 80,000 Somali refugees -- and more than half of those since 9/11. Recent headlines out of Minnesota: "Minnesota ISIS terror suspect pleads guilty to conspiracy," "February trial date set for Minnesota ISIS terror suspects," "The Twin Cities have an ISIS problem."


(Possible new GOP slogan: "We'll cut your taxes, as long as these voodoo priests and refugees approve it.")


In 1960, there were about 200,000 Muslims in the U.S., according to a study in the International Journal of Environmental Science and Development. Today, the U.S. census estimates that there are more than 6 million Muslims here. Muslims are expected to surpass Jews as the second-largest religion in America in about two decades.


No country has ever simply turned itself into another country like this.


With the media cheering the end of America and businessmen determined to keep importing cheap labor, Democrats don't even bother hiding what they're doing.


Democratic political strategists Ruy Teixeira and John Judis have been gloating for 20 years about how post-1965 immigration would soon produce a country where Republicans could not win an election, anywhere. Then Democrats could do whatever they want. They called the new emerging majority "George McGovern's Revenge."


In today's America, George McGovern would be a moderate Democrat; Jimmy Carter would be a two-term president; and we'd be holding primary debates at the Walter Mondale Presidential Museum and Library.


Any GOP candidate for president who wants to increase immigration -- i.e., all of them except Trump -- ought to be required to first pass this simple test: Be successfully elected governor of California on a platform of tax cuts and social conservatism.


The Democrats got the voters -- and the country got 9/11, Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon bombing, clitorectomies, an explosion of gang rapes, child rapes, sex tourism, slavery, voodoo, Russell Brand, billions of taxpayer dollars stolen in Medicare and Medicaid scams, an epidemic of heroin deaths, soccer, bankrupt school districts and hospitals, overcrowded prisons, and endless tax hikes to pay for all the immigrant services, as small town after small town goes all-Mexican, or all-Somali or all-Hmong.


The people coming in aren't the ones exulting about "the browning of America." It's smug liberals who want America to be humbled and destroyed. The cultural left is overjoyed at the remaking of our society into one that is poorer, browner and less free.


These changes are entirely the result of government policies that were never debated, much less put to a vote. Americans have not been consulted on the question of whether to turn our country into some other country. Never mind what we're doing. You'll thank us later.


I know it's gauche to consider what Americans want, but how about the immigrants? Presumably some didn't come only for the welfare, crime and terrorism opportunities. They decided to move to the United States -- not Mexico or Somalia or China -- because they wanted to live in America. If our current immigration policies aren't stopped, they're going to wonder why they bothered.


COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Illegal Alien Awareness Day
« Reply #962 on: October 23, 2015, 06:48:06 PM »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #963 on: October 23, 2015, 06:49:35 PM »
Precisely, GM.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #964 on: October 24, 2015, 06:44:51 AM »
"I am not not sure what a undocumented immigrant"

I can answer that for you GM.

An undocumented immigrant is defined as one who dreams.   A family person.   One is who hard working.   One who is making a better life for him or her self or their aspiring physicist children.

One who is honest, law abiding, and pays sales tax.  One who aspires to the American ideal.   An individual who is simply following in the footsteps of all those white European immigrants of yester yore.

In short a dreamer.   Just a step below a saint.  
« Last Edit: October 24, 2015, 06:51:01 AM by ccp »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Michael Savage: "We've Lost The Battle"
« Reply #965 on: October 26, 2015, 08:59:43 AM »
October 24, 2015 - World Net Daily

A major battle in a war over the future of Western civilization has been lost as millions of migrants from the Middle East who largely oppose Judeo-Christian values and have no intention of assimilating flood the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other nations, talk-radio host Michael Savage told his listeners Tuesday.

Savage said he received an email from someone he described as "far smarter than I am" and "farseeing."

"He said to me, 'It's over.'"

Paraphrasing the email, Savage said that what German Chancellor Angela Merkel is "doing to Germany, what the weakling is doing to England, what the socialist is doing to France, what Obama the psychopath is doing to America, will render this country non-existent in less than 50 years."

"And I said to him, 'Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong,'" Savage recalled to his audience.

"But the fact of the matter is, the world is changing in ways you could never have imagined."

Savage later affirmed to a caller that he hasn't given up, noting he presents in his upcoming book, "Government Zero: No Borders, No Language, No Culture," "40 actions to save America," including in the private sector and at the state and local government level.

"We haven't lost the war. The war has just begun," Savage said. "Because 30 million to 40 million Americans are finally awakened to what the psychopath has done to this country, and they want to stop him from doing more. They want to stop him before it's too late."


Savage criticized President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Merkel and other Western leaders with a provocative comparison he recognized could be misunderstood.

They are doing, he said, what Adolf Hitler did in reverse: Instead of invading other countries, they are letting foreigners invade their countries.

"Hitler was a psychopath," Savage said, who "invaded other countries to impose his nation's, let us say, his distorted values and race on other countries."

"What is Obama doing?" Savage asked. "He's invading his own country with people of other races and other cultures and other languages to wipe away the predominant language, the predominant culture of his own nation. He is equally mad.

"Barack Obama is as equally mad as Adolf Hitler in that regard," Savage emphasized.

"Write it down," Savage said, directing his words to establishment media. "Maybe it will make it to CNN: 'Talk-show host says Obama as crazy as Hitler, because he's invading his own country with foreigners.' But they'd better get the whole quote correct. And I don't know if they're capable of it."

Savage said Merkel "is invading Germany with foreigners."

"She's invading her own nation," he said.

Regarding the war for Western Civilization – which was built largely on English common law, Judeo-Christian morality "and the uniquely American principles of individualism and self-reliance" – Savage also referenced the cultural revolution of the 1960s.

Some 50 years later, he asked, "Can anyone say that has worked out well?"


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/michael-savage-weve-lost-the-battle/#p8oTDpwCUiVOUMTp.99
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72261
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #966 on: October 26, 2015, 09:28:38 AM »
I have discouraged using Savage as a source on this forum, AND CONTINUE TO DO SO, but reading only what Obj has just posted, I can't say I disagree.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #967 on: October 26, 2015, 11:51:49 AM »
I generally agree with Marc that Savage is not a reliable source, but even a broken clock is right twice a day - and Savage's comments here are valid, I agree.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #968 on: October 26, 2015, 12:20:35 PM »
Having heard Savage in the Bay Area back in the early 90's on KGO and then KSFO, I have not listened to him since probably 95. He was just too extreme and arrogant for me. And I have never read a book or article either.

But reading this, I must absolutely agree with Savage as well. He sums it up nicely as to what will happen if changes do not occur. Immigration will destroy the US without concern  for established borders and enforcing those borders and the immigration laws that go with them.

(This is also the problem I have with many Libertarians. They will tend to promote open borders along with legalization of drugs, etc.)

 
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72261
    • View Profile
Where we stand now on illegals
« Reply #969 on: November 12, 2015, 08:16:37 AM »
One of the key themes in the debate was the matter of what to do about the illegals here.

We here have tended to the absolutist line of thought.  Illegal= throw him/her out.  Period.

However IMHO this line of thought has a fundamental problem:  There are MANY cases where the parents are illegal and the child born here.  Until the country decides/realizes that birthright citizenship is not the law, that make the child an American.  Thus the absolutist position contains within it separating parents and children. 

POLITICALLY THIS IS SUICIDE.

Discuss please.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Where we stand now on illegals
« Reply #970 on: November 12, 2015, 08:21:42 AM »
One of the key themes in the debate was the matter of what to do about the illegals here.

We here have tended to the absolutist line of thought.  Illegal= throw him/her out.  Period.

However IMHO this line of thought has a fundamental problem:  There are MANY cases where the parents are illegal and the child born here.  Until the country decides/realizes that birthright citizenship is not the law, that make the child an American.  Thus the absolutist position contains within it separating parents and children. 

POLITICALLY THIS IS SUICIDE.

Discuss please.

The parents take their kids with them. Why is this so hard?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #971 on: November 12, 2015, 08:44:32 AM »
Agree with Doug. 

The separation of families is simply a distraction, nothing more. It is the SJW group approach, throw up "that's inhuman or rascist" arguments to make people feel bad.

Screw them all...................

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72261
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #972 on: November 12, 2015, 08:56:33 AM »
Why is that so hard?

Easy.

Most people are persuaded by anecdotal "evidence".

Let's say you have two illegal and fecund Mexican parents who have been here ten years and they have four children (i.e. who are broadly understood to be American citizens.)  Let's say the children are 9, 7, 5, and 3, and she's pregnant.  The first three are all in school, and speak English and little to no Spanish.  To make things worse, they have Bambi eyes.  One or both of the parents are working hard and they are paying taxes and have no legal issues apart from their presence here.

Out of 11 million illegal aliens my best guess is that the other side will be able to find plenty of cases like this.

Do you really want to go into the elections saying these American citizens should be uprooted from the only thing they have ever known and shipped off to bumfuck narco-stan in Mexico?

Seriously?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 08:58:16 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #973 on: November 12, 2015, 09:02:54 AM »
Americans who break the law are separated from their families by things called prisons. No matter how many kids they have. I guess we should stop enforcing those laws as well.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #974 on: November 12, 2015, 09:05:26 AM »
Crafty:

Uh - YES - we want to say that - the polls show most Americans will be sympathetic to that position - certainly more so that the Democrat "amnesty for everyone" position.  The reality is that we must at least threaten to do this - as Trump understands and is doing forcefully right now - doubling-down and saying he will have "deportation squads."  This is how you negotiate and get what you want. Simply saying this is going to scare the crap out of many illegals and cause them to self-deport if Trump or Cruz wins.

While ultimately we may well settle for something less than this extreme - it needs to be stated just the way Trump and Cruz are stating it.  These people and their children are here illegally.  PERIOD.  Send them back - and until the question of birthright citizenship is settled (which I believe it will be correctly if Trump or Cruz is elected - such that no such right exists) the children can choose to either stay here or go back with their parents.  This is not an ethical or compassion issue.  It is a legal issue.  Taking the left's bait and accepting their premise that it is "mean" to send these people back is unilaterally surrendering - which Republican have raised to an art until recently when people such as Cruz came along.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 09:11:42 AM by objectivist1 »
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #975 on: November 12, 2015, 09:08:57 AM »
Cd,

There will be a plan for them to return quickly to the US, if they qualify. If they do not qualify, then they cannot return. Why would we want to keep people who could not qualify to return (probably criminal history the cause of rejection)?

So we leave them in the US to be with their families, even though they are criminals.  Then, why have borders at all?  Let's just open up the US to anyone like Europe is doing.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #976 on: November 12, 2015, 09:10:28 AM »
Bringing this over from Carson thread:m
Quote from: ppulatie on Today at 09:32:36 AM
...
A reporter asked, “Can you explain your position on immigration? Are you in favor of encouraging people here to have a way to get — or in favor of supporting people here?”

Carson said, “Very easy question. I’m in favor of enforcing the laws that we have and in favor of securing our borders. All of our borders. This is not a difficult thing to do as was demonstrated in Yuma county Arizona where they stopped 97 percent of illegal immigration by putting up a double fence with asphalt road in between so there was quick access.
Actually putting border guards on the border and prosecuting first time offenders rather than the catch and release program that we now have. That stopped. That’s without the addition of some of the unique surveillance equipment that we now have available to us. I think you can get pretty close to a hundred percent.

The other thing you have to do is you have to decrease the incentives for people to come here. They say what is the point. That gets rid of the influx but it doesn’t take care of the 11-plus million people that are still here. I propose that we give them a six month period in which to register. If they don’t register, they’re criminals and treated as such. If they register in that six-month period and have a pristine record and they wish to be guest workers in this country they would have to pay a back tax penalty and have to continue to pay taxes going forward. They would no longer have to live in the shadow. That does not give them the right to vote. It does not make them U.S. citizens. If they want to become U.S. citizens, they have to go through the same thing anybody else wants to become a citizen, including leaving the country and apply from the outside unless the American people indicate they want a difference course than that.”

This is an excellent answer, very well thought through in my opinion.

PP's observations of weaknesses in this proposal are valid.  If they can't afford the penalty, they won't register.  Could be true.  But the IRS type program could also accept a payment plan of 30 years or more for a family.  A liberal friend says that if the policy is deportation, they will all hide.  Some truth in that.  Our government has incredible powers to track people, but is that what we want?  Trump says the process would be humane.  In this case he is reading the other side right; they will argue it is not, people dragged forcibly out of their own homes, women screaming,  children crying, you can already visualize the political ad.  Carson is spelling out a humane process in contrast with Trump's silence on it.

Jeb and Kasich are nuts to think there is no problem, let's keep going on the current path.

There has to be middle ground and both Rubio and Carson are seeking it.  There has to be border security and visa enforcement.  There have to be some people sent back, to send a message to the next wave that getting in and staying in is not a certainty anymore.  America is under new management.  And there has to be a way that productive, (otherwise) law abiding people and families, who are already fully established here for many years under the de facto amnesty of the last decades have some path to stay.  Carson hit that note as well as it can be done.

Are we talking about a $50 penalty, a $5,000 penalty or a $50,000 penalty?  Crafty talks about pricing the economic externalities.  Let's calculate the costs, divide it by the number of people involved and assess it.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #977 on: November 12, 2015, 09:12:49 AM »
As to Trump and immigration, remember this.

Trump is a master negotiator. What he says and seems to be saying is not what he is really doing. He is positioning the opposition for the kill shot. Look what happened in the debate. Jeb and Rubio all in for amnesty.  Trump has them where he wants them.
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #978 on: November 12, 2015, 09:14:53 AM »
As to Trump and immigration, remember this.

Trump is a master negotiator. What he says and seems to be saying is not what he is really doing. He is positioning the opposition for the kill shot. Look what happened in the debate. Jeb and Rubio all in for amnesty.  Trump has them where he wants them.

Trump is a master negotiator? Aside from Trump, who else thinks this is true?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #979 on: November 12, 2015, 09:20:15 AM »
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #980 on: November 12, 2015, 09:39:57 AM »
Good to see this heating up!  )

Crafty:  "POLITICALLY THIS IS SUICIDE."
...
Let's say you have two illegal and fecund Mexican parents who have been here ten years and they have four children (i.e. who are broadly understood to be American citizens.)  Let's say the children are 9, 7, 5, and 3, and she's pregnant.  The first three are all in school, and speak English and little to no Spanish.  To make things worse, they have Bambi eyes.  One or both of the parents are working hard and they are paying taxes and have no legal issues apart from their presence here.

Out of 11 million illegal aliens my best guess is that the other side will be able to find plenty of cases like this.

Do you really want to go into the elections saying these American citizens should be uprooted from the only thing they have ever known and shipped off to bumfuck narco-stan in Mexico?

Seriously?
---------------------------------------------------------

Not just the political ads, but millions of people actually know the millions of people involved, at their school, work, activities, extended family, and in the neighborhood and community.  It becomes single issue for a whole lot of people especially with peer pressure applied, that the so and so family is going to get deported if you vote Republican.

Objectivist:  "we must at least threaten to do this - as Trump understands and is doing forcefully right now - doubling-down and saying he will have "deportation squads."  This is how you negotiate and get what you want. Simply saying this is going to scare the crap out of many illegals and cause them to self-deport if Trump or Cruz wins."

Yes, we need a rule of law and a consequence for breaking it.  We also need to win the election to have a seat at the policy table.  I think that calm, reasonable, and even negotiable talk will get more done than taking what will most certainly be labeled an extreme position.

The people who came here illegally broke the law (a redundancy).  But also they were following the law of the land in many other senses, which includes federal non-enforcement, easy employment, open enrollment in schools, free healthcare and other 'goodies', birthright citizenship, in state tuition and at the local level, 'sanctuary cities'.  It isn't completely fair to put all the blame on the people who saw all this and took advantage of the opportunity offered.

To prosecute 'no trespassing' (on private property, state law), you need to post a no trespassing sign - reasonably visible.  
http://www.signs.com/blog/state-by-state-guide-to-no-trespassing-laws-signage/

Our sign has been saying, open, welcome, please come in, for quite a long time.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #981 on: November 12, 2015, 10:10:50 AM »
Doug,

To add to your observations:

Employers are required to check legal status of new hires. If they are not legal, they cannot be hired and the employer can be either fined or worse. Yet, if the employer does try to check legal status, the government can go after them for "adverse impact". 

Then you have another problem. Far too many illegals have social security numbers that they have absconded with and use for their employment. Eventually the IRS finds out and sends the employer a letter with the SS# problem. The employer confronts the illegal, and the following we, he comes in with a new SS# and gives it to the employer. Again, it is false, but the employer cannot  really check. He is damned if he does, and damned if he does not.
PPulatie


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #985 on: November 17, 2015, 09:09:31 AM »
Or dropping his pants and hoping to attract some hot young college women infidels... :-P
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #986 on: November 17, 2015, 12:20:13 PM »
The missing Syrian immigrant has been found...................in Washington DC.

Go figure............guess he just wanted to see the Washington Monument. Maybe the Jefferson Memorial.....
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #987 on: November 17, 2015, 01:36:04 PM »
The missing Syrian immigrant has been found...................in Washington DC.

Go figure............guess he just wanted to see the Washington Monument. Maybe the Jefferson Memorial.....

Ah, a pilgrimage to show his gratitude to the USA, no doubt.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #988 on: November 18, 2015, 05:59:06 AM »
'Accepting Syrian refugees is political disaster for liberals.'
   - Kevin Drum, MotherJones
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/liberals-should-knock-mockery-over-calls-limit-syrian-refugees

We know ISIS wants to kill us.
We know they can (and will) infiltrate the refugees.
We know we can't vet them.
[Obama might as well be chanting 'Death to America'.]

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #989 on: November 18, 2015, 09:13:21 AM »
We know Jihadists are future Democrats.   So Obama and the scumbags on his side will keep bringing them on over for votes.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Immigrants Welcome!
« Reply #990 on: November 18, 2015, 03:52:46 PM »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72261
    • View Profile
SS St. Louis
« Reply #992 on: November 18, 2015, 06:43:25 PM »
Re-post:

"This is a hilariously ignorant representation of the SS St. Louis voyage.

The St. Louis originally set sail for Cuba, which unbeknownst to the passengers had enacted stricter immigration policies since they embarked and required a $500 bond and written authorization from two Cuban cabinet members.

The US tried to intervene and have them admitted to Cuba, but the Cuban government refused. Privation was rampant after the Great Depression and immigrants were seen as competitors for scarce jobs and resources.

After negotiation, the reason they were refused admittance was and remained that nobody was willing to post the $453,500 required to admit them to Cuba, because the truth is that when it's not about rhetoric and it's about dollars and cents and actually doing something, almost nobody gives a shit about refugees.

They weren't allowed in Florida because of precedent. The US had already filled its quota of immigrants from Germany and Austria that year, and there was a backlog of several years. Admitting them would allow them to the front of the line ahead of over nine hundred others who had already been guaranteed immigration. Is there any incentive to follow the law if you can just sail over and plead to be allowed to the front of the line? Nope.

After the ship returned, 254 died in the Holocaust, half the number quoted, so I'm calling bullshit on this one. The full story of the voyage is available here:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267

- Commentary provided by Henryk Bronislaw Hinkle-Zaleski.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72261
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72261
    • View Profile
Patriot Post: Actually the law does require a religious test
« Reply #994 on: November 19, 2015, 07:06:50 PM »
No Religious Test? Actually, Yes, There Is
 

During his Monday press conference in Turkey, Barack Obama slammed opponents of his agenda to flood our nation with Syrian refugees. "When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted ... that’s shameful," he lectured. "That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion."

Except American law says we do have a religious test for admitting refugees (in contrast with no religious test for holding public office). Specifically, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy notes, "Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission 'must establish that ... religion [among other things] ... was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.'" Furthermore, Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title 8, U.S. Code defines a refugee as a person "who is unable or unwilling to return to ... that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of ... religion [among other things]."

The reason we have asylum laws, and the reason they are geared toward a religious test, is that refugees are often fleeing their homeland because of religious persecution. The Islamic State is specifically and horrifically targeting Christians for persecution, slavery (including for sex) and death. Yet just 53 of the Syrian refugees Obama has admitted since 2011 have been Christians.

=======================




objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Obama Actions Shield Most Illegals From Deportation...
« Reply #996 on: November 20, 2015, 05:34:35 AM »
Obama actions shield most illegals from deportation even as courts stall amnesty

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, November 19, 2015

President Obama's marquee deportation amnesty has been stalled by the courts, but the rest of his executive actions on immigration, announced exactly a year ago, are moving forward — including his move protecting more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants from any danger of deportation.

The amnesty, dubbed Deferred Action for Parental Accountability was supposed to grant full tentative legal status — including work permits, Social Security numbers and driver's licenses — to more than 4 million illegal immigrants. It has been halted by a federal appeals court, and its fate will soon rest with the Supreme Court.

But the rest of the dozen actions Mr. Obama announced on Nov. 20, 2014, are still advancing, including a far-reaching set of priorities that effectively orders agents not to bother deporting nearly all illegal immigrants.

"There are 7 or 8 or 9 million people who are now safe under the current policy. That is a victory to celebrate while we wait for the Supreme Court," said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat who was among the chief cheerleaders pushing Mr. Obama to go around Congress and take unilateral steps last year.

The actions — often mislabeled by the press as executive orders — also included changes to the legal immigration system, such as making it easier for spouses of guest workers to also find jobs; allowing foreigners who study science and technology at U.S. universities to remain and work in the country longer; pushing legal immigrants to apply for citizenship; and waiving the penalty on illegal immigrant spouses or children of legal permanent residents so they no longer have to go to their home countries to await legal status.

On enforcement, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, called for a more coordinated approach to border security, and that paid off with a major drop in arrests of illegal immigrants in the Southwest. Apprehensions were at their lowest levels since the 1970s.

At Mr. Obama's direction, Mr. Johnson announced changes that would let most rank-and-file illegal immigrants off the hook and instead focus deportation efforts on serious criminals, gang members and other security threats, and only the most recent of illegal border crossers.

"Immigration and Customs Enforcement is doing what I told them to do — to reprioritize and focus on convicted criminals," Mr. Johnson said this month as he took stock of the changes. "This is the general direction that the president and I want to go when it comes to how we enforce immigration law — focusing on threats to public safety and border security for the American public."

The changes are already having a major effect. Deportations, which peaked at nearly 410,000 in fiscal year 2012, dropped to about 230,000 in fiscal year 2015, which ended Sept. 30. But Mr. Johnson said more of those being deported are the serious criminals and safety threats he wants his agents to worry about.

Indeed, if agents adhere strictly to his priorities, some 9.6 million of the estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the country have no real danger of being deported, according to an estimate this year by the Migration Policy Institute.

"The enforcement priorities announced last year, if strictly enforced, do protect the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants from being deported, because most immigrants have been here a long time and haven't committed a serious crime," said Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the institute's U.S. immigration policy program.

The number could go even higher, depending on how agents follow some of Mr. Johnson's other instructions. The secretary had said even some illegal immigrants with serious criminal offenses on their records should be allowed to stay if they had mitigating factors, such as deep family or community ties.

Immigrant rights activists said they are still waiting for those special circumstances to be applied more broadly.

Mr. Johnson also has been pushing, with some success, to try to get sanctuary cities to buy into limited cooperation with his deportation agents. He scrapped the Secure Communities program that trolled state and local prisons and jails for illegal immigrants and replaced it with the Priorities Enforcement Program, which targets only serious criminals.

"It is tremendously harder now to deport even criminals, much less garden-variety illegal aliens. They have truly dismembered the immigration enforcement system, from the Border Patrol to the immigration courts," said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for stricter immigration controls.

But the jewel of the executive actions was the deportation amnesty, which was delayed first by a federal district court in Texas and last week by an appeals court.

All sides in the debate agree that was a huge blow to Mr. Obama.

"Without being able to give away a benefit, like a work permit, these changes are less permanent, and easier to undo in some ways, than would have been the case had the president been able to implement DAPA," Ms. Vaughan said.

Mr. Obama said he took the series of steps in response to inaction from Congress, where his push for a broad bill granting illegal immigrants a path to citizenship stalled in 2013. Frustrated by Republicans, Mr. Obama waited until after the 2014 elections, then announced his go-it-alone approach.

Many of the steps are works in progress.

Homeland Security has issued proposals to carry out the leniency program for illegal immigrant spouses and children of green-card holders and to allow foreign students in science and technology to stay longer. Both of those still need to be finalized, as does a proposal expanding hardship waivers.

Other moves were easier to accomplish: Homeland Security now accepts credit card payments for citizenship fees.

© Copyright 2015 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72261
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #999 on: November 21, 2015, 05:28:10 PM »
The analogy is false and an insult to the victims of the holocaust.

However it would be a closer comparison if we were inviting *CHRISTAINS* who were fleeing for their lives.  Not Muslims.

The libs will just not stop till they shove their ways down our throats.